Weight loss - some honest data to consider

[purplejackmama]

::highfive:: PEACHY DOODLE!

[kiana]

I just want to say that since I dropped out of obesity almost four years ago, I have been free of the intermittent and nearly crippling back pain I struggled with for most of my adult life.

 

Even if I woke up tomorrow as fat again as I ever was, these gloriously pain-free years would have been worth it.

[Guest]

. (Can you have a compulsion to NOT do something??)

Yes. That's a pathological aversion.

[creekland]

I ended up doing ok today.  Hubby expected we'd eat supper with his parents (since his dad told him that was the plan).  His parents ate at Wendy's before arriving at their cottage.  We mainly skipped lunch expecting a huge supper and ended up just eating 1/6 of a store bought cherry pie and about 1/3rd cup vanilla bean ice cream while watching a movie.  Normally that would have been dessert after supper...  I've no idea what the calories are as we rarely eat pie at home.

 

Poor hubby is likely feeling starved with hardly any lunch or supper!  (We also ate a really small breakfast so we could get on the road.)  I'm feeling relieved.  One day down.  ;)

 

And not that it matters much for this thread, but his mom (the one with Alzheimers/dementia) was mostly able to follow the movie (Benji - because she loves small cute dogs - that's why).  She also remembered who hubby and I are.

 

It's a doubly good day with that.  When we watched the Women's World Cup soccer last time we were here she couldn't follow that at all - not even for a minute.

[flyingiguana]

I was just reading an article in the Wall Street Journal (I think) about how people want the pork industry to start labeling meat that was produced using growth enhancers.  I can't find this on the web and I don't have the article (had to leave it behind at the gym because it wasn't mine).

 

Has anyone else seen that article?

 

Has it not occurred to anyone else that the reason more people weigh more now is because we're all eating growth enhancers?  You know, things that make pigs, cattle etc MUCH more efficient users of calories.  I really doubt this stuff is out of the meat once it hits the grocery.  Most of it, apparently, is used in the feedlot in the last few weeks before slaughter.  We've known about this effect of antibiotics for a long time, but there are other drugs being used for this too.

 

People who don't have weight problems either aren't sensitive to this stuff or aren't being exposed to it.  And, no, I suspect you can't avoid the exposure by just not eating animal products.  If your water comes from a river where there are feedlots upstream, or even just a lot of people eating meat and excreting drugs into the water, you're going to get exposed.  At least in the US where none of this stuff is banned.  It's interesting that obesity rates seem to rise the further you go down the Mississippi. 

 

Also, the fact that the meat industry uses these drugs to enhance weight gain in animals puts the last nail in that CICO theory.  It is certainly possible to easily manipulate animal bodies into using food more efficiently.

 

The research on what causes obesity is still pretty much in its infancy. It is possible that IN THE PAST people who ate a lot and didn't exercise were the only people who got fat.  But that might not be the case today.

 

 

[regentrude]

Has it not occurred to anyone else that the reason more people weigh more now is because we're all eating growth enhancers?  You know, things that make pigs, cattle etc MUCH more efficient users of calories.  I really doubt this stuff is out of the meat once it hits the grocery.  Most of it, apparently, is used in the feedlot in the last few weeks before slaughter.  We've known about this effect of antibiotics for a long time, but there are other drugs being used for this too.

 

People who don't have weight problems either aren't sensitive to this stuff or aren't being exposed to it.  And, no, I suspect you can't avoid the exposure by just not eating animal products.  If your water comes from a river where there are feedlots upstream, or even just a lot of people eating meat and excreting drugs into the water, you're going to get exposed.  At least in the US where none of this stuff is banned.  It's interesting that obesity rates seem to rise the further you go down the Mississippi. 

 

 

My first question would be: are the hormones used as growth enhancers heat stable?

Because, most people eat their meat cooked.

 

 

[Laura Corin]

My first question would be: are the hormones used as growth enhancers heat stable?

Because, most people eat their meat cooked.

 

My second question: why is the UK following the US in obesity levels, when the use of growth hormones in meat production (or the importation of such meats) is banned in the EU?  

 

This is also my answer when HFCS is blamed: we don't use it in the UK (we don't have the climate to grow maize on a large scale, so we eat imported cane sugar or local beet sugar) and yet we are getting fatter fast.

[creekland]

Not having critter chores to do while here at my in-laws, I'm catching up on some of my reading - mainly Reader's Digest since the articles are short allowing me to still interact with MIL often.  I read this interesting (on topic) one yesterday:

 

http://www.rd.com/health/diet-weight-loss/being-cold-weight-loss/#.hm4med:Z1Tu

 

"His findings have helped drive a theory gaining momentum among scientists: that people can harness environmental thermodynamics in pursuit of weight loss. Because the human body uses energy to help maintain a normal temperature, exposure to cold expends calories."

 

Any thoughts about this idea?

[flyingiguana]

http://www.webmd.com/diet/20140122/could-turning-down-the-thermostat-help-you-lose-weight?page=2

""We do have clear evidence that cold adaptation increases energy expenditure," he said. "There is no doubt in this respect. How pronounced these effects are in everyday life, especially in the long term, is not yet known."

The researchers are planning long-term experiments that involve having people live in cooler environments while tracking their weight over time. "We will vary indoor temperature and weight, and many other health parameters will be monitored," van Marken Lichtenbelt said.

"The other experiment ... is 'cold-temperature training,' also known as 'acclimatization,'" van Marken Lichtenbelt said. "This has been shown to rev up brown fat in rodents, and it seems possible that it could do the same in people."

Unlike white fat, brown fat burns calories instead of storing them. Some studies have shown that brown fat has beneficial effects on blood sugar tolerance, fat metabolismand body weight.

"It would be very interesting to do something like this in people who are dieting andexercising to lose weight, to see if this strategy could increase the weight loss or even allow the diet and exercise plan to work," van Marken Lichtenbelt said. "We know that so many people struggle with diet and exercise alone."

Is it worth turning down the thermostat if you're trying to shed some pounds? It's too soon to be certain that strategy would work, said Lazar,"

[flyingiguana]

My first question would be: are the hormones used as growth enhancers heat stable?

Because, most people eat their meat cooked.

This is why I want to find the article.  I can't remember the names of the growth enhancers so I can't do any more research on them.

[flyingiguana]

http://www.care2.com/causes/pork-industry-admits-using-muscle-stimulant-ractopamine.html

It's possible it's ractopamine I was reading about.  Looks like it causes animals to put on muscle, not fat.

 

Perhaps by causing something like shivering?

 

 

[Guest]

Not having critter chores to do while here at my in-laws, I'm catching up on some of my reading - mainly Reader's Digest since the articles are short allowing me to still interact with MIL often. I read this interesting (on topic) one yesterday:

 

http://www.rd.com/health/diet-weight-loss/being-cold-weight-loss/#.hm4med:Z1Tu

 

"His findings have helped drive a theory gaining momentum among scientists: that people can harness environmental thermodynamics in pursuit of weight loss. Because the human body uses energy to help maintain a normal temperature, exposure to cold expends calories."

 

Any thoughts about this idea?

I think it was in the book The Paleo Manifesto, that thermodynamics for weight loss or maintenance is discussed. He talks about certain activities that are mildly to moderately uncomfortable, like taking a walk in chilly weather underdressed, or turning ones morning shower to cold for two minutes at the end. It does make sense to me that this would work to expend energy.

[regentrude]

I think it was in the book The Paleo Manifesto, that thermodynamics for weight loss or maintenance is discussed. He talks about certain activities that are mildly to moderately uncomfortable, like taking a walk in chilly weather underdressed, or turning ones morning shower to cold for two minutes at the end. It does make sense to me that this would work to expend energy.

 

Yes, but you have to be shivering for the mechanism to set in.

[creekland]

Ok, we're five meals into this long weekend and I'm seriously wondering how in the world people can eat so much food so often... I am super stuffed - but hey, we've another full meal coming in 4 hours or so (sigh).  I can't politely skip it, but do plan to weasel out of dessert if I can.

 

I suspect hubby is glad to be back to "normal" for a bit though.

 

And we're certainly not testing out the "colder temps" theory at the moment.  It's hot in here - nicer outside right now - but that's too cold for MIL.

 

I seriously wonder if "normal" people get this little exercise too.  It's nice not having chores for a few days, but my body is aching for a nice walk at the minimum.  Doing so here would have me bitten up by deer flies.  MIL can't walk far anyway.  There are only so many times I can "head to the bathroom" just to get a walk down the stairs and back.

 

If we were to live with them permanently, changes would need to be made.  For four days... I can do this, right?  

[creekland]

Yes, but you have to be shivering for the mechanism to set in.

 

I'm not so sure - esp if this is partially the reason Michael Phelps eats so much while training.  I doubt he's shivering through all that training.

 

Shivering is definitely one mechanism the body turns on when it gets too cold, but I'm not sure it's needed for the body just to use more calories to keep our body temp at homeostasis with small changes.

 

It's an interesting thought - one I'm glad they are doing more studies with.

[kiana]

Livestock data would definitely support the body temperature -- animals gain best when they are comfortable, and their gains are delayed when they are either too warm or too cold. Here's some calf data -- http://www.hoards.com/E_calf_heifer/CF_Nov08

[Guest]

Yes, but you have to be shivering for the mechanism to set in.

I did not get the impression tat one must shiver for it to be useful, because swimmers were used as the basis for the concept. While swimming in moderately cool water, the body must compensate to regulate temperature, compared against a non-swimmerwho doesn't have this "exercise" of the body's temperature regulation system.

[regentrude]

I'm not so sure - esp if this is partially the reason Michael Phelps eats so much while training.  I doubt he's shivering through all that training.

 

Shivering is definitely one mechanism the body turns on when it gets too cold, but I'm not sure it's needed for the body just to use more calories to keep our body temp at homeostasis with small changes.

 

There was a fairly new study

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-02/giom-ets020214.php

that found shivering stimulated the increase in levels of two hormones which play an important role in fat metabolism.

 

 

[scoutingmom]

Well, I don't recall losing any weight when I winter camped (yes, in Canada, and yes, in tents or lean-tos or snow shelters, and one more yes... it was about -10C to -25C.....). But, I can't say I actually weighed myself....

 

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk

[Carol in Cal.]

Not that hormone, but they do seem to effect other aspects. In fact, one study showed that people with gastric bypass on probiotics lost more than those not taking probiotics. 

 

(guess who is now taking probiotics, lol!)

Did you ever try probiotics before your surgery?

Which ones do you take?  Do you recommend them?

[creekland]

Well, I don't recall losing any weight when I winter camped (yes, in Canada, and yes, in tents or lean-tos or snow shelters, and one more yes... it was about -10C to -25C.....). 

 

Ok, so we can all eliminate winter camping with you... ;)

 

Personally, I'm not ready to stay outside with no clothes in the snow, but I could easily ditch a jacket or sweater for certain time periods like at school or on a walk - anytime I'm busy - and I'd survive.

[ktgrok]

I was just reading an article in the Wall Street Journal (I think) about how people want the pork industry to start labeling meat that was produced using growth enhancers.  I can't find this on the web and I don't have the article (had to leave it behind at the gym because it wasn't mine).

 

Has anyone else seen that article?

 

Has it not occurred to anyone else that the reason more people weigh more now is because we're all eating growth enhancers?  

 

I'd love to blame that, but the growth hormones are not absorbed orally. That's why farmers have to give them to the pigs/cattle by injection. If they could just add it to the feed they'd love that, but it doesn't work that way. It has to be injected or implanted under the skin. 

 

However...there IS some good evidence that antibiotics cause weight gain. Famers give those to the livestock specifically to help them put on weight faster. And those absolutely are in our food supply. Probably water supply too. There is a link to how many times you had antibiotics before age 2 and obesity as well. 

 

Plastic is another thing that can MIGHT be a factor, less evidence on that. 

[ktgrok]

Did you ever try probiotics before your surgery?

Which ones do you take?  Do you recommend them?

 

I did,and never noticed much of an effect, but I may not have taken the right kinds or enough? I was taking them for other reasons then, just normal health, not weight loss. 

 

Right now I'm taking whatever brand my husband got at the health food for himself, don't know the brand. Sorry!

[flyingiguana]

The other thing about these weight gain drugs for livestock-- are they causing the addition of fat or muscle?

 

The ractopamine adds lean muscle.  What is the result of giving livestock antibiotics?  Is it more meat?  Or is it more fat?  Or more fat marbling in the muscle?  I wonder about how making fatter cattle would make the animal worth more, unless it was added in the muscle by more marbling.  Who would pay more for beef that just had more fat if much of that fat was going to get cut off?  (Unless it's being used to process into hamburger?)

 

And how do we know that overall weight gain in the human population is really due to more fat?  Is the BMI still a good measure of a population "fat" level if people are exercising more?  Measuring exercise levels is a lot more difficult than just getting a number off a scale.  Are there any good statistics on exercise/fitness levels in, say, the 50's vs today?  Just "having a sense" that people must have exercised more than and that's the reason behind the rise in obesity isn't very convincing.

 

We already know BMI is probably not a good measure of fat on athletes.

 

 

[Carrie12345]

Anyone have links on this theory of antibiotic use for weight gain?  My impression has been that antibiotics are needed due to the filth/close quarters of factory farming that encourages the spread of disease.

[regentrude]

Anyone have links on this theory of antibiotic use for weight gain?  My impression has been that antibiotics are needed due to the filth/close quarters of factory farming that encourages the spread of disease.

 

No, certain growth promoting antibiotics are given just to improve the feed conversion ratio, i.e. the ratio produced animal product to feed mass. The antibiotics are given in sub therapeutic doses.

If you google growth promoting antibiotics, you find a large number of sites with details.

I don't have time for a detailed search, here is one for starters:

http://amrls.cvm.msu.edu/pharmacology/antimicrobial-usage-in-animals/non-therapuetic-use-of-antimicrobials-in-animals/use-of-antibiotics-in-animals-for-growth-promotion

 

The article also lists several ;possible mechanisms by which this process might work:

 

Although repeatedly proven in various studies, the mechanism of action for the enhancement of growth of subtherapeutic levels of antibiotics remains unclear.  Among the hypotheses tested are the following:

1. Stimulation of intestinal synthesis of vitamins by bacteria.
2. Reduction in total numbers of bacteria in the intestinal tract with a lowering of competition between microorganisms and host animals for nutrients.
3. Inhibition of harmful bacteria which may be mildly pathogenic or toxin-producing.
4. Inhibition of bacterial urease.
5. Improved energy efficiency of the gut.
6. Inhibition of bacterial cholytaurin hydrolase activity.
7. Nutrient sparing.
8. Improved nutrient absorption from morphological changes to small intestinal epithelium.
9. Modification of intestinal enzyme activity.
10. Reduced immune stimulation.
11. Modification of rumen microbial metabolism.

 

ETA: from what I have read, growth enhancing antibiotics increase both fat and muscle, as well as milk output in dairy cows.

[kiana]

The ractopamine adds lean muscle.  What is the result of giving livestock antibiotics?  Is it more meat?  Or is it more fat?  Or more fat marbling in the muscle?  I wonder about how making fatter cattle would make the animal worth more, unless it was added in the muscle by more marbling.  Who would pay more for beef that just had more fat if much of that fat was going to get cut off?  (Unless it's being used to process into hamburger?)

 

Livestock are sold while alive by the pound -- there's a set price per pound -- so more mass = more money. It doesn't really matter whether it's muscle or fat.

[kroe1]

Just wanted to mention that 'weight training' does not need to be 'lifting weights'. Yoga forces me to carry up to 60 kilos on various large muscles repeatedly and systematically.

Yep, and don't forget Pilates or anything else that strengthens the big striated muscles.

 

I do get a better muscle workout myself with free weights because I can control exactly how much poundage is placed on each muscle group and repeatedly work those bigger muscles at once. Then I work the smaller ones like biceps so I can look cool lifting my arm and kissing a bicep in front of friends. With Pilates and yoga, personally, there is some core muscle stuff which aggravates me because it interrupts the continual workout of the larger group. Really, it is because my teachers are slave drivers who want to hear me moan, but we will ignore that fact. In reality, we all know it is the total package that counts and there are a ton of ways to get a great workout with the bigger muscles to keep them strong.

[kroe1]

I was just reading an article in the Wall Street Journal (I think) about how people want the pork industry to start labeling meat that was produced using growth enhancers. I can't find this on the web and I don't have the article (had to leave it behind at the gym because it wasn't mine).

 

Has anyone else seen that article?

 

Has it not occurred to anyone else that the reason more people weigh more now is because we're all eating growth enhancers? You know, things that make pigs, cattle etc MUCH more efficient users of calories. I really doubt this stuff is out of the meat once it hits the grocery. Most of it, apparently, is used in the feedlot in the last few weeks before slaughter. We've known about this effect of antibiotics for a long time, but there are other drugs being used for this too.

 

People who don't have weight problems either aren't sensitive to this stuff or aren't being exposed to it. And, no, I suspect you can't avoid the exposure by just not eating animal products. If your water comes from a river where there are feedlots upstream, or even just a lot of people eating meat and excreting drugs into the water, you're going to get exposed. At least in the US where none of this stuff is banned. It's interesting that obesity rates seem to rise the further you go down the Mississippi.

 

Also, the fact that the meat industry uses these drugs to enhance weight gain in animals puts the last nail in that CICO theory. It is certainly possible to easily manipulate animal bodies into using food more efficiently.

 

The research on what causes obesity is still pretty much in its infancy. It is possible that IN THE PAST people who ate a lot and didn't exercise were the only people who got fat. But that might not be the case today.

No doubt this plays a big role in society's current weight debacle, but it does not negate CICO.

 

I never cook so when I finally decided to fry some chicken recently, I nearly fainted when I opened a package of chicken breasts. Those suckers were as big as my forearm! The last time I fried chicken, probably 1970's the large breasts were about the size of my hand with fingers spread out. Theses new breasts were at least double. Holy cow, people think they are still eating just one piece of chicken at dinner when in actuality they are eating 2 and 1/2!

 

In addition, steroids are fluid retainers so if we are eating those gigantic portions of meat (egads, McDonald's has a 1/3 pounder now), then we are asking for more calories and more fluid retention. Salt, for most people only temporarily causes fluid retention. We pee out the additional salt within a few hours. Steroids, however, take longer to break down.

 

Bottom line, as a society, we have got to redefine what is an acceptable amount of food to go in the mouth, first. Then we can tweak it from a nutritional aspect. But, as long as people feel they are eating a regular or small amount of food, when in reality, they are eating quite a bit more than a 1960's American, we are going to be an overweight society. Sorry, but a 1/3 pounder hamburger is a 3 woman meal, not a one person meal. Wake up America.

[kroe1]

Sorry to chime in once again, but yes, some of the steroids and antibiotics survive high temperatures and even are absorbed through digestion, although certainly a good portion are denatured and absorbed in fragments or pooped out. We did some experiments on this during one of my graduate courses 20 years ago.

 

Nonetheless, it is still American's distortion of the size of the serving of the meat that is the bulk of the problem. Even our serving spoons have gotten huge. When I dish out two spoonfuls of DH's pasta using our cool WalMart serving spoons, I get 3/4 more weight of pasta than if I use my mom's 1960 Tupperware serving spoons. Again, get the portions down, then let's talk antibiotics, steroids, HFCS, low fat, etc.

[Bluegoat]

Interesting interview regarding the psychologist's new book. Personally I tend to look on a medical answer but I wonder if a psychological answer is what's needed? And to accept a set point? This seems drastic. One year ago i had a different set point than now. Five years ago it was different too, and ten years ago, etc. The problem for me is there is no set point, it's just going up. And I feel I should try to decrease that or prevent it as it's just getting worse over the years. And we all know about medical risks with obesity, especially as we age. Idk, stuff to think about.

 

i tend to agree with the article pretty wholeheartedly, although i would make a caveat, which may be in the book as well, i don't know.  I think that there are just a lot of body types by nature, and there are very limited things you can do about that. I think generally speaking it makes much more sense for people to try and eat a really healthy diet and live a healthy lifestyle, but also try and live a happy lifestyle.  I have met more than one dieter who chose not to do exercise because it messed with the diet plan and losing - I think that is crazy.

 

There are a few people for whom poor eating is caused by a more serious physical or psychological issue, and clearly that is a different problem, but one that needs to be addressed if possible at its root, not symptomatically.

 

But this is why I think, as I argued up-thread, that looking at an overall poor eating culture is a serious issue.  It's our eating as kids and young people that seems to be the cause of a lot of people having a set-point that is higher than they might like.  It also sets our deep expectations about food, our tastes, and our habits.  Drinking a half-liter of pop a day, or juice, not an uncommon thing for many people,  wrecks havoc with a young body, it creates a habit, and a taste for sugar.  All of those things are very difficult to change later on, even if you want to.

 

So I do think it is important to talk about healthy lifestyle - including things like calories and exercise, types of food, nutrient density, and portion sizes - with young people and the parents of children, and just developing good habits in their daily lives. Most kids are in school all day, it should be easy to have some influence on such things if there is political will.

[Bluegoat]

Not having critter chores to do while here at my in-laws, I'm catching up on some of my reading - mainly Reader's Digest since the articles are short allowing me to still interact with MIL often.  I read this interesting (on topic) one yesterday:

 

http://www.rd.com/health/diet-weight-loss/being-cold-weight-loss/#.hm4med:Z1Tu

 

"His findings have helped drive a theory gaining momentum among scientists: that people can harness environmental thermodynamics in pursuit of weight loss. Because the human body uses energy to help maintain a normal temperature, exposure to cold expends calories."

 

Any thoughts about this idea?

 

From a personal experience perspective, I would say there is something to this.

 

I am a moderate to light eater overall, though I like chocolate and chips too much.  But I don't eat a ton.  When I was in the army, we used to do winter training exercises.  I just hoovered in the ration meals on those exercises, much more so than on summer ones.  That is 3,600 calories a day, and they are a bit gross too under normal circumstances, but they tasted like heaven in the cold.

 

Part of it was probably that walking around in the snow is more work, but I think the cold, and especially sleeping in the cold, was a significant factor.

 

[Bluegoat]

As far as giving regular antibiotics to livestock - there are so many reasons this should not be allowed.  Making people fat would be the least of it.  I dont know how it isn't illegal.

[ktgrok]

Again, get the portions down, then let's talk antibiotics, steroids, HFCS, low fat, etc.

 

I have to wonder though, if we served larger portions to people back then, would they just not finish and say they were full? 

 

Did portions increase because people were hungrier, or are we hungrier because we eat portions that are too big?

[regentrude]

I have to wonder though, if we served larger portions to people back then, would they just not finish and say they were full? 

 

Did portions increase because people were hungrier, or are we hungrier because we eat portions that are too big?

 

I don't even know whether we are actually hungrier. Often, people eat just because they want to eat, not because they are actually hungry.

My only overweight family member, my dad, is never hungry. He managed to mess up his metabolism to lose this natural feeling. He eats because he feels like eating, because he has an appetite - but has not felt hungry in decades.

 

So, I don't think people are hungrier. They just eat more.

 

ETA: I find that a lot of eating happens out of habit. Snacks at every kiddie function? Kids don't need to eat every hour - it's just a habit society has fallen into. Snacking while watching TV? Many times we eat mindlessly, on the go, in all kinds of places other than the dining table at meal times. Not because of hunger.

 

[Greta]

I have to wonder though, if we served larger portions to people back then, would they just not finish and say they were full?

 

Did portions increase because people were hungrier, or are we hungrier because we eat portions that are too big?

Yes, I think it's very important to ask ourselves WHY Americans are suddenly so much hungrier!

[ktgrok]

I don't even know whether we are actually hungrier. Often, people eat just because they want to eat, not because they are actually hungry.

My only overweight family member, my dad, is never hungry. He managed to mess up his metabolism to lose this natural feeling. He eats because he feels like eating, because he has an appetite - but has not felt hungry in decades.

 

So, I don't think people are hungrier. They just eat more.

 

Ok, fine, give it a different term. Why are their appetites bigger then? Is it from eating too much? Or are they eating too much because their appetite has increased?

[kroe1]

I have to wonder though, if we served larger portions to people back then, would they just not finish and say they were full?

 

Did portions increase because people were hungrier, or are we hungrier because we eat portions that are too big?

Great question and not much actual research, but lots of theories. My personal one is just conditioning. The Shoney's Big Boy servings were considered huge back then and it was a big treat for families to go stuff themselves on Saturday night, mine included. It was a new pastime, no different than going to the movies. McDonalds Big Mac showed up soon after and the rest is history. We became a society away from home more often as kiddos started doing more organized activities after school rather than playing in the yard waiting for mom to make dinner. More women entered the work force and faster food and restaurants became a needed alternative. Since the restaurants were serving these big portions, our at home portions quickly followed. I have no factual evidence of this, only anecdotal.

[Greta]

I don't even know whether we are actually hungrier. Often, people eat just because they want to eat, not because they are actually hungry.

My only overweight family member, my dad, is never hungry. He managed to mess up his metabolism to lose this natural feeling. He eats because he feels like eating, because he has an appetite - but has not felt hungry in decades.

 

So, I don't think people are hungrier. They just eat more.

He never allows himself to experience true, physical hunger - I think that's what you're saying. But something is preventing him from feeling satiated.

 

I really think there is something(s) in the modern diet that have messed up our sensation of being full and satisfied and nourished.

[ktgrok]

Great question and not much actual research, but lots of theories. My personal one is just conditioning. The Shoney's Big Boy servings were considered huge back then and it was a big treat for families to go stuff themselves on Saturday night, mine included. It was a new pastime, no different than going to the movies. McDonalds Big Mac showed up soon after and the rest is history. We became a society away from home more often as kiddos started doing more organized activities after school rather than playing in the yard waiting for mom to make dinner. More women entered the work force and faster food and restaurants became a needed alternative. Since the restaurants were serving these big portions, our at home portions quickly followed. I have no factual evidence of this, only anecdotal.

 

I really don't think most people that eat large amounts do it out of habit. But that's just anecdotal too. 

[regentrude]

Ok, fine, give it a different term. Why are their appetites bigger then? Is it from eating too much? Or are they eating too much because their appetite has increased?

 

Habit. Snacking culture (I added to my previous post.)

 

And because it's there. Restaurants are especially bad. They sell giant portions because the extra food cost is small and consumers think they get "good value" for their money and should eat it up as not to waste something they paid for. From the restaurant's point of view a smart business strategy.

This distorts the image of what a reasonable portion should look like.

 

[creekland]

So I do think it is important to talk about healthy lifestyle - including things like calories and exercise, types of food, nutrient density, and portion sizes - with young people and the parents of children, and just developing good habits in their daily lives. Most kids are in school all day, it should be easy to have some influence on such things if there is political will.

 

This is taught very thoroughly at our high school in a class all students have to take.  It doesn't stop many of the students from bringing McD's for breakfast practically daily though.

[regentrude]

He never allows himself to experience true, physical hunger - I think that's what you're saying. But something is preventing him from feeling satiated.

 

 

No, he feels satiated after the meal. He just eats because it is meal time and there is something yummy on the table. Not because he feels physical hunger.

 

I really think there is something(s) in the modern diet that have messed up our sensation of being full and satisfied and nourished.

 

No, I do not believe we can blame "modern diet" for that. He just eats too much and does not move. Period. My mom eats the same foods - after all, she shops and cooks - but smaller portions and she walks several miles a day for errands/shopping etc. I grew up in the same household and had no trouble either.

I do not think it is a coincidence that the only two family members in my extended family who are overweight (dad and FIL) are the only ones with extremely sedentary lifestyles. Everybody else on both sides (mine and DH's) of the family is of normal weight and also a lot more active, and this has been the case for several decades.

[Greta]

Regentrude, I do think you make a good point about "snacking culture". But the thing I have noticed about the vast majority of these kinds of snacks is that they're almost always either sugary or starchy. I know this isn't true for everyone, but for me and for many people out there refined carbohydrates actually *increase* appetite rather than satisfy. If you have insulin resistance, carb snacks are a nightmare, because they put you on a blood sugar roller coaster, which results in you craving more and more and more carbs. So then, yes, it becomes a habit, or more like a vicious cycle.

[kroe1]

And I remember walking through a Goldsmith's department store in the seventies looking at some modern style dishes with large plates. They were so cool and everybody wanted them. Some were even square or oblong.

 

Now, I can pull out two 1940's pattern china sets that I own. The diameter is 2 inches less than my current every day set. Plus, there were wide lips to the plates back then so much smaller actual place to put the food. The tea glasses I have in the Desert Rose pattern hold probably 6 to 8 ounces only.

[Pawz4me]

I think over the past few decades with the rise of convenience foods our appetites have become distorted.  Food doesn't have to be prepared from scratch.  It's relatively quick and easy.  It's right there, all the time.  Everywhere.  It's so easy to just grab something at the slightest little twinge in the tummy.  Many of us no longer know what it feels like to really be hungry.  Over the past few decades we've come to think that feeling "not full" is a sign we need to eat something.

[regentrude]

And I remember walking through a Goldsmith's department store in the seventies looking at some modern style dishes with large plates. They were so cool and everybody wanted them. Some were even square or oblong.

 

Now, I can pull out two 1940's pattern china sets that I own. The diameter is 2 inches less than my current every day set. Plus, there were wide lips to the plates back then so much smaller actual place to put the food. The tea glasses I have in the Desert Rose pattern hold probably 6 to 8 ounces only.

 

I brought all my dishes over from Germany when I moved here. My biggest dinner plates are 9 inches in diameter, and that includes the slanted lip.

 

 

Since the early 1900s, the size of a normal American dinner plate has become at least 25% larger. In the 1960s, plates were roughly 9 inches in diameter. In the 1980s, they grew to around 10 inches. By the year 2000, the average dinner plate was 11 inches in diameter, and now, it’s not unusual to find dishes that are 12 inches or larger.

Read more at http://www.vegkitchen.com/nutrition/how-the-size-of-dinner-plates-affect-portion-control/#dsIgQPEtuMTfEj6v.99

[ktgrok]

No, he feels satiated after the meal. He just eats because it is meal time and there is something yummy on the table. Not because he feels physical hunger.

 

 

No, I do not believe we can blame "modern diet" for that. He just eats too much and does not move. Period. My mom eats the same foods - after all, she shops and cooks - but smaller portions and she walks several miles a day for errands/shopping etc. I grew up in the same household and had no trouble either.

I do not think it is a coincidence that the only two family members in my extended family who are overweight (dad and FIL) are the only ones with extremely sedentary lifestyles. Everybody else on both sides (mine and DH's) of the family is of normal weight and also a lot more active, and this has been the case for several decades.

 

But are they sedentary out of will, or because their metabolism is such that the calories they eat go to fat and are not available to be burned for fuel, making them feel tired/inactive? Again, it's a chicken and egg thing. You are describing behaviors, but that doesn't tell us WHY one person in the family eats more and walks less. What if eating more and having less energy is a symptom, not the cause? That is what we are trying to get at. 

 

If your dad was an alcholic and you were not, you could say ,well it's obvious, he's an alcoholic because he drinks too much. (in other words, he's obese because he eats too much). But that wouldn't explain WHY he's drinking so much, you know? He drinks so much BECAUSE he's an alcoholic. We are looking for the "WHY" behind eating more, or not burning calories, etc. There is something deeper there. 

[Greta]

No, he feels satiated after the meal. He just eats because it is meal time and there is something yummy on the table. Not because he feels physical hunger.

 

 

No, I do not believe we can blame "modern diet" for that. He just eats too much and does not move. Period. My mom eats the same foods - after all, she shops and cooks - but smaller portions and she walks several miles a day for errands/shopping etc. I grew up in the same household and had no trouble either.

I do not think it is a coincidence that the only two family members in my extended family who are overweight (dad and FIL) are the only ones with extremely sedentary lifestyles. Everybody else on both sides (mine and DH's) of the family is of normal weight and also a lot more active, and this has been the case for several decades.

Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that he over-eats. But you're saying he eats a normal amount, he is just extremely sedentary?

 

Edit - sorry, no you said right there in the part I quoted "he eats too much". So in other words, it takes a much larger meal than what his body actually needs in order for him to feel satisfied. And you and I have different theories as to why.

 

Forgive me. I've been sick for a week and I am not functioning well at all. Maybe I should not be attempting to communicate! :lol:

[creekland]

He never allows himself to experience true, physical hunger - I think that's what you're saying. But something is preventing him from feeling satiated.

 

I really think there is something(s) in the modern diet that have messed up our sensation of being full and satisfied and nourished.

 

If it's at all like mine, I don't experience true, physical hunger anymore.  What got messed up (for me) happened during radiation, so your guess is as good as mine as to specifically why.  No one has given me a good answer.  I can literally go for at least a day and probably far more without feeling the slightest twinge of hunger even if I'm smelling something delicious.  I haven't seen how long it would last 'cause I don't think it's healthy, but there are times I get curious (hence knowing it will last at least 24 hours).

 

The feeling full part is something I also didn't get for a bit, so for almost the first year of this blessing, I didn't lose weight - too many other cues and patterns to eat and nothing stopping me from actually eating.  It was expected to eat, both by me and others.  

 

Now (for the last 8- 9 months), having cut back on how much I eat and actually losing weight I can feel full pretty quickly.  Having been at my in-laws and forcing myself to eat far more than normal (for me), I'm seriously contemplating not eating for a couple of days!  Chances are, I won't skip breakfast tomorrow though.  I tend to skip lunch and/or supper (or eat very light at them), but not breakfast.  I seriously don't want to lose the health aspect just to exploit the no-hunger feelings.

 

My goal is to lose weight until I reach my target while still staying healthy.

 

At this point I have an extra three lbs to take off - courtesy of my in-laws.  If it's like the last trip's weight gain, it'll be gone in less than a week, so I don't think it's really "there" like weight gain was in my not-so-distant past.  Or there's that set point idea.